Some of the smart editors over at The New York Times recently pulled together an interactive tool to help citizens better understand the depth of Russian infiltration into American institutions during the 2016 election. “See Which Facebook Ads Russians Targeted to People Like You” the story promises. And true to its word, readers are now able to pinpoint exactly how social media tricked them into voting for Donald Trump.

What sort of devious KGB mind-control mechanisms had been unleashed on the unsuspecting American electorate, I wondered. Soon after entering my details — age, area and interests — I came face to face with the alarming answer. “Accounts linked to Russia showed these 3 advertisements to people like you on Facebook or Instagram.”

Had the Ruskies merely sent two propaganda messages my way, I might have written the entire Russia-Facebook scare off as a transparently overblown political ruse used solely to create the impression that a legitimate presidential election was tainted for partisan reasons. But three ads simply can’t be dismissed.

Because “people like me,” which is to say, middle-aged Americans who live in big population centers and are voracious consumers of political news, can, apparently, be bullied into voting against our beliefs simply by glancing at a trio of ads that pass through our social-media feeds.

Don’t beat yourself up over it. The messaging deployed by Vladimir Putin to prod Americans into offering their allegiance to Trump was layered with a subversive complexity likely undetectable to the average person. One of the ads, pushed by a front group with the ambiguous name “Trumpsters United,” used a stock photo of American flags, and asks viewers “to remember those who lost their lives and for their families and loved ones.” For all we know, this might have turned the state of Wisconsin for Trump.

The other two ads, both from an account labeled “Being Patriotic,” rallied miners and fans of manufacturing jobs to Trump.

How can anyone be expected to resist this brand of messaging? The most visible of all the advertisements featured an amazing 260 reactions and 27 comments!

Judging from some of the coverage, though, these ads might be tantamount to the Cuban Missile Crisis — an attack on American democracy itself. Because a convenient, but corrosive, fantasy has taken hold on the left. It’s predicated on the notion that US voters have no agency; that elections can be “stolen” by the mere presence of a few misleading social-media accounts.

This myth lives despite there being little evidence — none, actually — to suggest that a single voter had his mind changed by Russian ads that were indistinguishable from the thousands of other partisan appeals that hit our feeds and inboxes during the election season.

Now, of course, Russia shouldn’t be involving itself — however ham-fistedly obviously — in American elections. Even endeavoring to interfere in a foreign election is a violation of international norms, and it should be investigated and retaliated against.

But part of living in a free, roiling, messy and democratized society means being bombarded with missives from all kinds of elements — even ones we can’t stop.

Because the beneficiaries of a campaign to convince you that free will doesn’t exist aren’t only attempting to discredit the 2016 results and undermine our trust in institutions. The idea that you can’t be trusted with the internet is the rationalization for governing social-media interactions and infringing on expression.

This is a boon for those who want to control the flow of political information. More than once during the Trump presidency, Democratic Party leaders have called for more regulations of online speech and “in-depth forensic examination” of their adversaries on Twitter and Facebook.

And if the question is would I rather live with some Russian trolls feeding low-information voters nonsense or allow senators to dictate how all of us consume news, the answer will always be the former. Because in a free society, the Russians or Chinese, or some other adversary, are likely to always have the ability to infiltrate discourse to some extent. We, not technocrats or politicians, are responsible for sifting through that information and figuring out what we believe.

Because normalizing the notion that Americans are incapable of making choices is far more destructive than a few Russian ads on Facebook.

David Harsanyi is a syndicated columnist and senior editor at The Federalist.